Compelling, creepy, annoying or just bad? Retail’s personalization opportunity
It’s hard to believe it’s been over 20 years since Martha Rodgers and Don Peppers’ seminal book The One to One Future. At the time, Dr. Rodgers and Mr. Peppers (not to be confused with Mr. Rodgers and Dr. Pepper!) offered up the radical notion that mass, one-size-fits-all marketing would begin yielding to a brave new one-to-one world. Followed just three years later by Seth Godin’s classic Permission Marketing the more intrepid among us started to make “treat different customers differently” our mantra and advocate for a shift to more targeted and personalized campaigns. Alas, we were a bit ahead of our time.
Despite years of missteps and hype, some two decades later the business case for greater marketing and experiential personalization remains strong. Fortunately, lower cost data storage and more effective technology solutions, along with general advances in know-how and the ability to reach customers through digital channels, now make it possible for most retail brands to realistically differentiate themselves on the basis of deep customer insight, data science and advanced targeting strategies. From where I sit, it won’t be long before advanced personalization skills become table-stakes in the battle for customer share of attention. To remain relevant — to become the signal amidst all the noise — retail marketers will have to get good at one-to-one marketing and in delivering more personalized experiences both in the store and on the web.
Yet, despite the strong business case, advancing capabilities and many years of experimenting, personalization’s potential remains largely untapped. For every success story, it seems as if there are dozens of weak efforts or outright debacles. In fact, a recent study by Accenture estimates that personalization failures cost US firms $756 billion and a total of $2.5 trillion globally. While I have a hard time getting my head around the accuracy and magnitude of those numbers, there is no question poor data management and far from stellar personalization can chase away business as well as leave a lot of money on the table.
As we start to understand how to both avoid problems and seize on opportunities, I find it’s worth asking a few basic questions.
Is it compelling?
The essence of good personalization is two-fold: is it relevant and is it remarkable? Delivering intensely relevant one-to-one (or mass customized) experiences is predicated on deep customer insight and the ability to target the right interaction (or offer) to the right customer at–or as close as possible–to the right moment. Retailers that are getting it right use data science to ascertain customer needs and wants and to better predict the next most effective marketing action. Stitch Fix is a great example of a company that has built predictive analytics and targeted marketing into the fabric (heh, heh) of their enterprise. The other key element is “remarkability.” Even if an offer is relevant, simply serving up the same old tired promotional tricks is unlikely to get a good response and help enhance the brand’s image. According to the Accenture study, 44% of all customers feel that brands fail to deliver relevant personalized experiences. Plenty of untapped opportunities here.
Is it creepy?
In my experience, the vast majority of customers have no idea how easy it is for marketers to purchase potentially useful pieces of data to better inform their targeted marketing strategies. Moreover, many customers fail to grasp how their lack of attention to privacy settings on places like Facebook allows marketers to glean all sorts of insights from the data breadcrumbs left behind by our traffic, likes and so on. Advances in statistical techniques and artificial intelligence allow for powerful inferences to be made by analyzing behaviors, transactions and demographic information. Walking the thin line between delivering surprisingly useful recommendations and something that smacks of Big Brother –or that raises unnecessary privacy concerns–is challenging. In the bloodthirsty quest for incremental revenue, it is all too easy for undisciplined marketers to step over the line. Resist the temptation. Strong brands are based on trust. Tread lightly.
Is it annoying?
I’ve met few marketers that believe less is more. For most, more is more, often to the point of going well beyond diminishing returns. Since email (and certain other digital messages) are often quite cheap at the margin, retail marketers often take the bludgeon approach to their campaign messaging. They dial up frequency until we yell “Uncle.” They chase us all over the internet with retargeting ads. They offer us products we just bought (oh yeah, sure I often buy a second dishwasher or espresso machine the week after I bought my last one). The holiday shopping season is a particularly bad time of the year where frequency goes to 11 and many promotional strategies look like they were created by Jackson Pollock. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
Is it just bad?
In 2011 I started pointing out when bad personalization happens to good people and it’s become a bit of a hobby for me (apparently I have that kind of time). A certain airline (I won’t tell you which one, but their initials are “AA”) regularly sent my teenage daughters offers “specially selected” for them which included deals for mortgage financing. We were nicely generous with their allowances, but not enough for any real estate speculation. Neiman Marcus (where I once, ironically, oversaw our customer insight and personalization efforts) often encouraged me to redeem my InCircle Rewards points. Which would be great if I actually had any. Citibank still pitches me a credit card I already have, while AT&T, um, well where to start?
The first rule of personalization club is to not ask a customer to provide information that you already have (unless it’s to verify identity). The second rule is to demonstrate that you know the customer and understand their relationship with your brand. Any offer that belies that is likely to make a brand look dumb. The third rule is to show the customer that you value them: value their time, their spending, their loyalty, the exchange of information they may have provided you. Don’t waste a customer’s time by misusing their data, failing to protect their privacy, trying to sell them stuff they already own and not making a real effort to treat different customers differently. Don’t mistake simple or cheap for useful or effective.
Personalization is not easy. But the revolution sweeping retail demands that brands get more relevant, more differentiated and more remarkable. And fast. For many, delivering more personalized experiences and marketing may be the difference between success and being roadkill in the age of Amazon and digital disruption.
The changes that many brands need to make are not insignificant. They typically require new technology, new people, new processes, new metrics, material incremental investment and a willingness to aggressively experiment. But to paraphrase Eric Shinseki, “If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.”
via Steve Dennis http://bit.ly/1Uf0dwo
December 16, 2017 at 09:10AM
The idea of a fashion brand having kids model their grown-up clothes is all kinds of fantastic. Love these photos!
via Swiss Miss http://bit.ly/25KYQgd
December 15, 2017 at 03:23PM
Friday Link Pack
– A wooden water pistol! Ha!
– Visual Sitemaps! I love this.
– If only this existed when I was a kid, growing up in the Swiss country side: 10+ YouTube Channels to Learn How to Draw for Free
– This disco snowman made me laugh.
– Your kids are going to do things they shouldn’t. Keep a sense of humor. It helps.
– This mermaid tail mug made me chuckle.
– This made me uncomfortable. But I couldn’t look away.
– Ziggeo’s Screen Recording API is the first embeddable video screen recorder. Ideal for customer service troubleshooting, website testing/customer experience and market research.
– Ever feel awkward? Here’s a video for you.
– This home took my breath away! What a dream!
– If my kids were still little I would totally get one of this charming looking mp3 players.
– I enjoyed this post by Grace Bonney: What I Wish I’d Known Before Starting Design*Sponge
– All of the Tattly Gift Ideas.
via Swiss Miss http://bit.ly/25KYQgd
December 15, 2017 at 10:38AM
Comic Con (TM)
The term Comic Con has become synonymous with a certain culture. In recent years, comic book conventions (and comic book culture), have become increasingly popular. Annual comic book conventions are held in major cities across the U.S. and the world. Many of these conventions are titled—officially or unofficially—“[City] Comic Con.” One recent jury decision, however, may cause some (official) rebranding.
In 2014, the San Diego Comic Convention (San Diego CC) sued organizers of the Salt Lake Comic Convention (Salt Lake CC) for trademark infringement. San Diego alleged that Salt Lake willfully infringed its registered COMIC-CON and COMIC CON INTERNATIONAL marks.
Salt Lake CC defended primarily on the ground that “comic con” is a generic term for comic book conventions. The convention organizers cited to the names of various cities’ comic conventions to show the term is used generically—Motor City Comic Con, New York Comic Con, Denver Comic Con, and Emerald City Comic Con, among others. Salt Lake CC also pointed to the usage of “comic con” in media to generically refer to a type of convention.
Throughout the case, Salt Lake CC worked to rally fans behind the view that “comic con” belongs to the public. Eventually, Salt Lake CC’s tweets, Facebook posts, and press releases about the case prompted the federal judge to issue a gag order. The order temporarily prevented Salt Lake CC from commenting on the case, and restricted their ability to republish public court documents. The order was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately vacated on First Amendment grounds.
At trial, San Diego CC presented its Comic Con to the jury as a brand. Through surveys and other evidence, San Diego CC convinced the jury that Comic Con is not a generic term for a type of event. Instead, San Diego argued, it operates as a source designator for the San Diego convention.
The Jury found that Salt Lake CC’s use of “Comic Con” infringes on San Diego’s registered marks. The infringement, however, was not willful according to the jury. Thus, despite San Diego’s request of $12 million in damages, they were awarded only $20,000 for corrective advertising. Post-trial motions will likely be filed, and the case may be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. But at least for the time being, it seems Comic Con is (officially) off limits to event organizers without a license. However, I suspect (unofficial) uses of the term will continue.
via DuetsBlog http://bit.ly/2yiJYLA
December 15, 2017 at 09:05AM